Wednesday, October 29, 2014

I have learned throughout my life as a scientist
and inventor chiefly through my mistakes and pursuits of false assumptions, not
by my exposure to founts of wisdom and knowledge.

(Igor Stravinsky)

(Actually, Stravinsky wrote “composer” but knew
well that this assertion is true for scientists, inventors, engineers,
innovators and leaders – in even greater extent. The keyword is “false
assumptions”- the deep, dangerous roots of errors!)

It could be interesting to compare the world
premiere of “Rite of Spring” by Stravinsky with the Fleischmann-Pons press
conference or the first E-Cat experiment at Bologna, January 14, 2011Interesting
yes, but not of much use, events and ideas (as books) have their own, specific and
unconfoundable fate.

In medias res:

I hope we have now a femur of the beast (Lugano test) and
it is not just a small phalanx of its left foot. I have eventually chosen the
metaphor of the dinosaur and not that of the elephant (the initial title of
this essay was” Theory of the Elephant. More precisely of the Elephant’s Ear”
but I have abandoned it because the elephant is real, living and can be studied
much too directly and easily in comparison of LENR+ i.e. potentially useful
LENR.

The
Lugano Rossi test has generated a great quantity of data and of questions;
unfortunately even the most benevolent and constructive ones – my questions
from the Open Letter to the 6 professors remain unanswered – and I have to confess
that their silence hurts me and I take it as a personal defeat. It has happened
that the Internet has helped me by defining beautiful questions. It is here:

“A beautiful question is an ambitious yet
actionable question that can begin to shift the way we perceive or think about
something -- and that might serve as a catalyst to bring about change.”

You remember I have tried to find the actionable
parameters of LENR, now I have tried to find the actionable questions to the
Authors and have failed to get answers.

An aside Do not think I am kind of favorite of the Web, it
is true it helps me many times however I also get highly unpleasant messages
too. Two days before my 77th birthday last week, I was hit with this
one:

75 Years of Life Is Quite Enough, Says U.S. Health Authority

I have mined for special words in my personal dictionary,
however what they say is right both statistically and theoretically. I am not a
typical case, as Koba Dzhugashvili would have said.

The new theory of C.O. Gullstrom

Not impressed by the open question if the analytical
results of the Lugano Test represent a femur or just a fragment of a finger of
the HotCat Dino, graduate student Carl Oscar Gullstrom has created this theory
paper: Low radiation fusion through bound neutron
tunneling

My friend and colleague in grandfathership, Doug Marker has
announced me immediately about it. I have read it but could not decide what to
think. Up to today the Gullstrom paper became popular, Andrea Rossi himself has
congratulated the author and has invited him to discuss about LENR. Details at
the leading e-Catology site:

I am not a theorist and also
not omniscient. Google Scholar is both, and it does not answer to the search:
“bound neutrons tunneling” I have read tens of Cold Fusion/LENR theories in the
era of B.E.S.Th. (Before Ed Storms’ Theory) and many of them include some
imaginary creature- as a purple invisible unicorn plus the claim that this is a
part of the Solution. The problem is if “bound neutron tunneling” is something
real or just a new unicorn. The answer is in the future, but beyond any doubt
this is an impressive A.E.S.Th. (I am
just reading Ed Storms’ great book and I am convinced he is sure about the
truth of his theory so B.E.S.Th and A.E.S.Th. can be good names of LENR eras.

I have told many times that I
think LENR needs a bunch of different theories being a multi-stage process, if
the Gullstrom theory will be a part of the winner combination - I don’t know; are Nickel and
Lithium the only participants in the heat generating process? Experiments could
decide so we must invest even more in the MFMP group ‘who’ will investigate
this.

Questions regarding- this
time- an Elephant.

I have asked questions not only
from the HotCat drivers but also from the authors of this abstract- a work to
be presented during the coming weekend in Japan:Analysis of Heat Generation
using Pd and Ni Fine Wires Tadahiko Mizuno and Hideki Yoshino Hydrogen
Engineering Application & Developing Company,SapporoJapan

How can nickel react in this
case with deuterium - in direct opposition with Piantelli’s studies? And what
are the reactions here? Is this an entirely new development of LENR? Very credible being given the impeccable
prestige of Tadahiko Mizuno! However I did not get any supplementary
information regarding it despite of trying hard.

Will this mystery be solved at
the presentation of the paper? The reactor has an on-line mass spectroscopy
system that is not able to identify the species present. It is some information
circulating that there had not been performed the necessary off-line analyses
either. (???) I hope this is not true and we will know what we want. If no
helium is formed, this system will not be popular and some colleagues will
consider it as a trunkless elephant. However it works!

Monday, October 27, 2014

There are no problems of understanding with negative
definitions and with negative discoveries. What something is NOT and what’s
absence was discovered are crystal clear concepts and I have written a lot
about them on this blog.

It seems at Industrial Heat such tests coupled with thorough
analytical studies are not usual:

“As a matter of
fact, the enrichment system is the process made by means of the ECat.
Nevertheless, the results from the test have gone well Beyond what we found
before during our internal R&D. As I said, now we are studying how to
reconcile, but during these last days we arrived to understand possible
explications; much more study is necessary, though.”

Sooner or later, we (to be defined!) will know the
complete story of elements and all their changing isotopes and it will be
unexpected, I bet. It will be first of all, a negative discovery, LENR is not
fusion but something much more complicated and different.

To illustrate the situation I want to use an analogy
because we think with analogies, but this analogy must be fixed, it is known in
a deeply erroneous variant. I know everything about it including all corrections,
you all were told only about the highly idealized form of the story trying to
make the poor ugly duckling an ideal hero, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Duckling

Hans Christian Andersen wanted to show that he is
actually the ugly duckling, but being the illegitimate son of an aristocrat his
noble, swan like nature will eventually prevail.

The true story of the Ugly Duckling.

For swan ladies wanting intense sexual life or being feminists,
the equivalent of abortion is laying an egg in the nest of ducks.

They further don’t care for the fate of their children.
Swan babies are ugly and clumsy and strange, they will receive lots of insults
and will grow up in a crippling world dominated by hostility and nastiness both
psychological and physical. Very soon the young swans will lose completely
their self respect and will suffer personality collapse under the terrible
stress, oppression and continuous humiliation. Evolution depends 80% on
education and only 20% on genetics, therefore the poor unhappy creatures will be
soon deprived of their swan nature/essence, in most cases irreversibly. The end
of story is tragic the demoralized, depressed, desperate, hopeless ugly little
duckling will become a mature but underdeveloped ugly duck for the rest of
his/her short wasted life. C’est la vie… de la pauvre cygne).

You can easily guess that I have not told you this deeply
pessimistic tale as a member of the Swan Protection Society. No, I have
informed you because it opposes realism to the false Andersen story.

It is kind of metaphor of LENR that was raised as a cold fusion
duckling however its real nature is superior, a more interesting process both nuclear and non nuclear but not simple
primitive brutal fusion –at least for the swan like rich energy source.Yiannis Hadjichristos describes/defines HENI In this way:"Besides of the dominant definitions of LENR, all mixing cause and effect and unproven hypotheses of nuclear nature, a more sophisticated (but yet to be proved) definition of the observed phenomena under the name HENI recognizes the non linear multi-phase process towards excess heat energy production as triggered by excited Hydrogen atoms and metal surface excitations within a controlled and clean environment, where all its supportive elements and active materials (gas and solid) define a Nanoplasmonics Active Environment dynamically rebuilt in situWith reference to N.N. Taleb- this will be the whitest Black Swan from the history of Technology.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

THIS DOCUMENT CREATED ON MY 77th
BIRTHDAY IS AIMED FOR WORLD WIDE CAMPAIGNS OF RADICALLY IMPROVING PROBLEM
SOLVING SKILLS

A pandemic more dangerous than hundred Ebolas threatens
humanity: Probletence. The word is
derived from “problem” and “impotence”; it describes the continuous decrease in
ability to solve our most important, critical, painful problems in all the
domains of human activity from politics to science and from education to
economy. The unique partial exception is technology and this shows that Homo
faber is our unique great hope, nobody else cares for us. If we cannot stop probletence,
our future will be drowned in insoluble problems.

The roots and causes of Probletence are complex and in a
dynamic evolution from bad to worse.

In so many cases the strong majorities are on the part of
the Problem and the weak minorities only fight for the Solution.

Many people have realized that it is so much easier to
live from the problems and make them permanent than creating change and
building solutions

More frequently even the problem goes unrecognized or is
misunderstood not the solution.

In too many cases in problem solving the means become
more important than the aims and the attention is focused on the methods and
not on the solution itself.

The memes of the problems are stronger and faster tan the
memes of the solution and dominate; we live in a memecracy of problems.

Counterculture with its myriads of forms is more damaging
than even the terrible weaknesses of the education system that

does not support critical and independent thinking, problem
solving, change, creativity.

Incremental progress is more encouraged than genuine
breakthroughs

Extreme specialization dominates over the great
syntheses, deep understanding and creating a holistic and holographic vision
for the most important problems.

Typically, urgent problems eat important
problems for breakfast.

.

All these are not new things however the
problems as such become increasingly difficult inherently and many of them are already
chronic petrified or unbelievably sticky- so probletence is constantly aggravating.

Then how can we stop Probletence? I am offering you
thereby a solution for the problem Mother of all problems – an infallible set of
20 rules created by me as a modest contribution to the saving of the World.

RULES OF REAL LIFE PROBLEM SOLVING

Motto:

“I think, I exist. I decide, I live. I solve the
problems, I live with a purpose.”

1. There are NO isolated problems, they always come in
dynamic bunches.

2. There are NO final solutions for the really great
problems, these have to be solved again and again.

3. NOT solving the problem, but defining it is the
critical step.

4. NOT the unknown data, but those known and untrue are
the greatest obstacles to the solution.

5. .NOT what we know, but what we don’t know is more
important for solving the problem.

6. NOT the main desired positive effect, but those
secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution
is implemented.

7. NOT all problems have a complete, genuine solution.

8. NOT the solutions that seem perfect from the start,
but those which are very perfectible are the best in many cases.

9. NOT the bright, shiny, spectacular solutions but those
elaborated, worked out with difficulty and effort and patience are more
valuable and have a larger area of applicability.

10. NOT the solutions that are logical and perfectly
rational, but those that are adequate for the feelings of the potential users,
even if they are illogical, have the greatest chances of fast implementation.

11. NOT the quality of the solution but the speed of its
implementation is the decisive factor in many cases. It can be better to have a
partial solution applied fast than a slower almost perfect solution.

12. NOT always long hours of hard work and great efforts,
but (sometimes) relaxation and fun is the best way to obtain solutions for
(awfully) difficult problems.

13. NOT our own problems, but the problems of other
people are usually more boldly and creatively solved by us

14. NOT the solutions worked out by us, but those
borrowed. bought or stolen from others are more easily accepted and
implemented.

15. NOT the enhancement of human strengths but the
limitation of human weaknesses is more useful for efficient problem solving.

16. NOT the very careful perfect planning, but the smart
assuming of risks and firm decision taking are the practical keys to successful
problem solving.

17. NOT always the existent, real problems, but many
times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most difficult to be solved.

18. Do NOT accept the premises of the problem, but change
them as necessary and possible.

19. Do NOT stop at the first solution, but seek for
alternatives.

–

RULE- the most important of all;

20. NOT the wise application of these rules but the
finding of the specific exceptions to these, is the real high art of problem
solving.

The rules are inherently perfectible. Despite their broad
applicability

including the most wicked problems and their availability
in 20 languages the rules are till not taught in schools and are far from the
stage of epidemic dissemination. This results in Humanity terrorized by myriads
of unsolved, painful problems of all kind, by a worldwide epidemic of
Probletence.

The impact of my proposition was minor and I have
received too many thorny and Krivitized
questions, unusable - therefore I have decided to write you in my own
name and in the name of my Blog and to ask you the following questions:

LIST OF QUESTIONS (I stage)

1- Can you tell us more about the design of the Cell and
the planning of the Test?

2- On which thermal and
optical characteristics of the alumina used for the vessel, was the test based?

3- Can you give more
data regarding the internal structure and the transport, transfer and transformation
of matter and energy in the Cell?

4- What methods of
stimulation (EM etc.) have you used to trigger the reactions?

5- In which extent the
cell/process tolerates the presence of air and water?

Please remove any and all the doubts regarding the temperature
of 1400C on the Cell ergo question 6 and 7:

6- How do you explain the survival (?) of Ni nanostructures
in the close proximity of the melting temperature of nickel?

7- Is the device “calorimetrable” i.e. what is the effect of
cooling, partial removal of excess heat?

8- Based on your two tests including the analyses of both
fuel and ash what do you think about the reactions taking place?

9- Is there a complete set of analyses bound to the test-
that can be used to work out understanding and theory/ies of the process?

10- -With whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm
(theory)?

11- What your attitude towardreplication of the test, new tests
other actions in collaboration?

Please send the answers to the Blog (comments) or to peter.gluck@gmail.com

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The publication of the new Rossi report is an important
event for our scientific-technical field. My expectations from this research
project were:

a) the proof of massive
excess heat and

b) scientific data usable for the building of the new
paradigm of LENR (or what it actually is) – implicitly for the necessary
replacement of the old paradigm that does not work neither toward
understanding, nor toward a new source of energy.

The Report supports both expectations however not
completely. The reason is that I am not a know-it-all; I do not understand some
principles, subtleties and details of the Report. This is a problem and
problems must be solved. The most straightforward solution is to initiate a
productive high quality dialogue with the Authors. Clearly this has to be a
multi-staged dialogue going from the essentials to the details, however not
by-passing the critical issues, if any.

I make an appeal to the empathy of the Authors: remember
that “It is the question that illuminates, not the answer” (Eugene Ionesco)
Their task is easier, they know the answers while we have to create quality
questions able to pass all the natural barriers and to stimulate the positive
attitude of those who have made this great work.

EMPATHY FOR THE AUTHORS.

On our turn, we have to feel sincere empathy for all the
Authors who took great risks by supporting an idea that is oppressed and an
individual who is demonized by merci- and shame-less critics and bravos who all
have made a passion and credo for attacking everything connected to Rossi. The
authors have received tons of insults, offenses, are ridiculed both by dogmatic
professionals and sadistic amateurs. It is no exaggeration in this, I have read
all those personal attacks; they are personal because almost all the trolls
have high degrees of technical and scientific illiteracy and have not written a
single research report in their lives. The Authors are right to avoid any contact
with ill-willed ignorance, dominant arrogance, incurable prejudices and loquacious
incompetence. Lack of respect for the work and the authors are not excusable.

We have to demonstrate them that we are different, we
sincerely and professionally motivated want to understand how the process
works, how this experiment was organized – and what open problems- if any- are
left. We are in the same boat as they.

THE AIM IS: ASKING ANSWERABLE QUESTIONS

I have watched the Internet for long years and I have to
say that very rarely I have seen a dialogue that wasn’t actually a set of
parallel monologs- we have to try very hard now. We have to practice the high
art of asking answerable questions in the most consistent logically way.
Obviously this will be a multi-stage – process- and within the stages – going
step by step.

8-any questions linked to
Rossi +IH’s industrial secrets, however we have to let the authors to decide
which ones belong to this category.

Which kind of
questions to be asked:

1-short, condensed, clearly
formulated, generative questions

2- "first-things- first
questions

3-MAXIMUM 10-12 essential
questions in the first stage

Sources for questions- are many: forums as Vortex- a lot
of threads, some abandoned, some still open, E-Cat World – for good questions.

There are some 50 unanswered questions at the LENR Forum,
unfortunately this did not worked- no wonder it is an olla podrida of very
different questions- no taxonomy there.

But we have to use the most natural one.

When I have had the task to analyze hundreds of patents
for the technologies of OLTCHIM, the natural order was: chronologically (in
time), logically (type of technical solution) and technologically (according to
the owner company, grouped as solutions) – so it was possible to use the
patents to get the visions of technologies (obviously in combination with book,
papers, grey literature and many other sources)

For the Report- the basis is chronological: before,
during and after the Test, design, execution, interpretation.

In this case we have an excellent model-in-principle for
questions (implicit ones) - the prompt analysis of Mike McKubre:

Sunday, October 19, 2014

As a former citizen (captive) of a communist regime I am
very indebted to the author of this popular quote for his political activity.
The authoritarian regimes have collapsed and I am free today and he has
contributed to this.

The Kissinger quote is appreciated as something wise –
and, in many circumstances- as life or death situations it indeed is.

However in more normal and less stringent situations,
exactly the contrary of what he has told is true:

“The absence of alternatives
blocks the mind completely”

(Hostile Pragmatic Reality)

Later in retrospective, after the disaster, many times,
you will see that actually there were alternatives but you had no ideaabout
their existence. You had no proper information about the possibilities,
about the ways to escape, the saving solution or, simply the correct
explanation; the circumstances have forced you to act or answer what you could -
and you lost or failed. The response was a forced error due to lack of
information- or knowledge, wisdom.

This has happened in 1989 with the Fleischmann Pons
discovery: lots of excess energy- it cannot be chemical being too great – than it
MUST BE nuclear. Due to our inherited love of certainty and simplicity- we (the
collective mind, a splinter of Zeitgeist actually) have called the new source
of energy Cold Fusion. In a sense it was both a blessed and a cursed moment of
the history of science and technology. I still consider justified calling Cold
Fusion a “miscovery”http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/05/concept-of-miscovery-and-what-it-means.htm
- and a misname. Only now so many years later we start to see and understand
that the process is nuclear only partially and it is nuclear of a special kind-
a new reality appears, it is much more than a new theory.

However Cold Fusion gave the creative opportunity to
Ethan Siegel to write a third cold fusion paper- I have dis/miscovered it
today:

Nasty, aggressive title the content is very similar with
the other two Siegel papers presented here recently…

Probably to suggest that Rossi is a scammer, Siegel
re-tells us the story of the chess automaton of Kempelen Farkas (1734-1804) Hungarian inventor and scientist, kind
of Dean Kamen of his age. The chess automaton- with a very talented dwarf
player inside was more a joke, a challenge however this player inside was a
formidable talent. See his games: http://www.chessgames.com/player/the_turk.html

Siegel
re-demonstrates that Cold Fusion cannot be fusion.

I don’t remember when exactly has told Arthur C Clarke “it is probably not cold and not fusion” The founding
fathers have also spoken about an “unknown nuclear process” quite early.

Speaking about the Sun- as a model for fusion energy we
are not warned that it is a lousy weak source of energy- very low energy density- we cannot use such weaklings. Our patent
specialist, David French has written an intellectually enchanting paper about
this:

Our Universe is the most interesting of all possible
Universes but it is not a model of efficiency. For long time I have complained that
the speed of light, the absolute maximum is snail-like if we take in
consideration the huge distances between the material formations, galaxies stars,
whatever. Not a model of promptness, not in the spirit of “bis dat qui cito dat”

But Siegel will not give; in the name of Science he will
take our new source of energy away. Dear Ethan, you are right
that cold fusion of the productive sort is not fusion, so please join the
efforts to find out what it is. Learn together with those who have started the
job.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

and the test described by the Rossi Report is only a bit
different- can it be called a victory? It is a difficult problem of definition.
As usual, all the parts involved in the confrontations claim victory. Judging
realistically, it wasn’t a breakthrough, a game changer event. (Note: in this
essay I am speaking about a victory for science)

As a professional problem solver (see and use my problem
solving rules!) my approach is this: I
see the solution- the test is what it is, but it can and must be converted in a
full victory! Opportunity lost has to be
made opportunity re-gained.

It could have been done by parallel experiments in the
same place or more places. It also could it be done by repeating it

in improved, anyway smartly chosen different -
conditions.

The sampling procedure was a horrible Waterloo
battle for science. I still hope that a second – everything goes to analysis-
sampling was indeed done. The results of the grand analysis are accessible
probably only to Rossi, Industrial Heat and a few insiders- but does this sanalysis+multi-disciplinar
investigation exist or is it only a product of my wishful thinking?)

Rossi says he is now fully committed to the 1MW plans and
the customers will decide if these multi-Ecat heat generators bring profit or
not; if Yes! the new energy source is here and everything is OK,
technologically and economically. It is sad and quite symptomatically: Rossi is
not more speaking about the promised Theory.

He speaks about the Standard Model and other classical
theoretical physics issues, while this new energy source

is actually new physics- added to old physics- extending it,
not contradicting it. Who knows what is the philosophy of scientific progress
of Andrea Rossi? Is he able to understand and to control well his own
invention? I don’t know him, I cannot
communicate with him but I still hope. I know from many examples from history-
human nature does not change essentially- that the relationship of all kind of
creators and their creations can be complex and paradoxical. (For me, given my
personal cultural example the most impressive example is described in Stefan
Zweig’s book: “Decisive Moments in History” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisive_Moments_in_History

chapter 9: “Genius of a single night- Rouget de Lisle
writes La Marseillese”. The most revolutionary song was written and composed by
a rather reactionary person. I know all analogies are flawed but our brains are
programmed to use them.

It was very naïve to hope that the great dream of Cold
Fusion will be saved by a Knight with no fear and beyond reproach”

Rossi is perhaps too real, too human to be a new Bayard
in science and energy. He has problems to solve. How could he combine a
technological financial victory with the victory of science? More probably
other researchers will do it for him.

The lack of a theory of LENR became something
intolerable.

One of my reader friends, whom I consider a brother in life
experience based non-idealism, Doug Marker from Australia
writes about these fundamental realities:

- No one has yet come up with a published theory or set of
theories that full explain all the LENR / HENI reactions that have been
demonstrated up to now.

- Without a widely
accepted theoretical base for the devices, some scientists can 'fairly' (in a
fashion) argue that they

don't
really exist or worse are deceptions.

- The biggest
opposition to Rossi and others is from scientists who argue that the devices
violate fundamental laws of

science, BUT that is
NOT and can NEVER BE absolute proof such devices don't exist, only that they
can't be explained

using
known rules/laws.

Doug is
so right wit this requirement of capturing LENR by the accepted theories; I
will illustrate this with two papers of a mainstream scientist fiercely
fighting for the orthodoxy of Physics.

Ethan
Siegel has published a new anti-CF, “I do not believe (in) Rossi” paper at the
elite

It is highly similar with his
first paper discussed in my “Learning from a confrontationalist” paper

I take only the final
sentences of these papers

The first one ended with:

“Given everything
that we know,asothersalso
demonstrate(thanks, Steven B.
Krivit), it’s time to set aside the mirage of Nickel + Hydrogen fusion and get
back to work findingrealsolutions to our
energy and environmental problems.”

The great problem here is the order of
words- actually this has to be read- “we know everything and it is no place
for Nickel + Hydrogen fusion” But, dear Ethan, is this Report speaking
about this impossible fusion? It says, despite its mutilated analytical part
that we have to deal with a complex dance of interactions and isotopes,
something DGT started to assert very soon after its divorce from Rossi in 2011.

Siegel’s new paper ends with a superior and
arrogant: “I will hold up the torch of what scrupulous science
would look like, and challenge the participants to live up to it. Until then,
this isn’t meritorious enough to be interesting.”

Doug,
like me, has much understanding and empathy for Rossi’s secrecy ( I am more
contrariated by what he has said about all Ni going to the isotope 63- was or
wasn’t this a huge surprise for him?)

Doug
says:

“If
I were Rossi and dealing big problems he has, I would NEVER let anyone have
full access to my fuel or all the ash. That fuel and the ash are Rossi's crown
jewels and if Rossi knows his device works but that he can't explain it nor get
a good patent for it, then he could well feel fully justified in tampering with
his 'crown jewels' knowing that once he allows full access to them in all their
detail, he has given away his achievements and still can't explain how it
works. That glory would go to the next person who could use Rossi's fuel -
process and ash to figure out the science. I have no difficulty stepping in to
Rossi's shoes and behaving as he does while grappling with his dilemmas. If
Rossi knows his device works (just ask Defkalion) then any trick or lie or
sleight of hand can be justified if it is protecting his position”

Point being
that the core of Rossi's problem assuming no fraud, is that what his device
does is impossible because no known laws explain it.

It is sad, but I must agree with Doug- we cannot wait
complete analytics or theory from Rossi just small fragments of truth or
partial truth.

The solution can come from Defkalion when they will
finish launching Hyperion 6 and this includes the bureaucratic legal part

for this household generator (Rossi will try to solve
this only after the customer experience with the industrial 1 MW gathering of
E-cats.)

But a faster solution became also possible due to our
true –and young knights with no fear and reproach – the Martin Fleischmann
Memorial Project Group. These researchers have courage and despite many
warnings that CF/LENR is bad for your career, despite seeing slow progress ,
open problems, non usable theories, chronic and deep lack of funding plus extreme
heterogeneity, confrontations, conflicts, failures predicting new failures-
lots of unhappy things- these admirable boys believe in the Fleischmann-Ponsian
bold dream of an energy source at the
far right side of the Ragone plot accessible only from the very far
right side of the Medawar Zone and they have decided to replicate the Lugano
experiment. Bravissimo, this is the best news we had after the publication of
the Report:

I have read what and how they want to do and I like it
sincerely, good strategic thinking.

MY APPEAL TO ALL MY READERS, WHEREEVER THEY ARE IS TO
HELP BY ANY MEANS THE MFMP GROUP TO REPLICATE THE LUGANO EXPERIMENT! ASK ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO SUPPORT THEM
FINANCIALLY, WITH INSTRUMENTS, MATERIALS, CHEMICALS, CRITICAL INFORMATION, EVERYTHING
THEY MAY NEED!

I wish so much to be younger with 40 years and join them
but this is not possible due to my limitations, and all I can do depends on you, dear readers.

I hope
they will embrace the new paradigm and will succeed converting the test in a
scientific victory.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

I am still confused about the analyses made/not made by Rossi.
He helps/does not help- paradoxical style; nobody has tried to console or help
me and I do not know what to think...

Yesterday in an interview with John McGuire Rossi said:

This report is no doubt very
interesting and we are studying it because, as you probably know, there is a surprising
result regarding the Nickel-62 in particular, and we
are studying it because we are strongly directed, under a theoretical point of
view, to understand these kinds of results that was unexpected.

Today, answering on his blog to Italo R.:

No doubt about the increase of 62Ni, which we found manytimes, about the entity
measured a strong work is in the making

It seems to be a contradiction here, I dare to think but I
am not sure.

The brightest comment of this day was made at this very
positive and encouraging paper:

“There are many exciting players in the race to bring Low Energy
Nuclear Reaction (LENR) to the marketplace. There are also several competing
hot fusion nuclear reactor designs that could be very cost effective and
compact. The main thing is we have to replace fossil fuels and end the
renewable energy fad-fiasco. For details and the BIG PICTURE, please Google *The
Renewable Energy Disaster*. We need solutions that do not cause far more
problems than they solve.”

The last
sentence seems to be general but also an allusion to Rossi and to the Report-
but this is my opinion, not Christopher’s.

I am
still waiting the authors of the Report will answer to the doubts regarding
energy measurement (because I KNOW Rossi’s feline creatures are able to
generate huge quantities of excess energy. I say and sign this, Mary Yugo and
her companions trolls can call me as they wish) The problem of sampling is more difficult,
does a complete analysis exists and is this in harmony with the former analyses
made. I still hope he has told the truth today and not yesterday.

Calder
is right: progress is when the number of the problems decreases and the number
of solutions increases, when each problem is replaced by an other one, as
tricky as the original we have stagnation; when we are overwhelmed by problems

it is
decay – and if always the same old problems hit us- it is probletence.

I will
start a list of Solved Problems in LENR. Can you suggest some examples?

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

A week after the publication of the Rossi Report, the
turmoil continues but we already can start to build a vision of the general
situation, asking: who confronts whom and what.

Let’s start with the worse one; at first sight you surely
do not realize the horror of it.

Rossi confronts real problems, enemies, competition
and this is natural for such a difficult and challenging research project like
his- but now also belonging to Industrial Heat and, in part to Elforsk.

a)The
professors have obtained unique surprising results now, for the first time;

b)Rossi
has worked for some 3+ years and has never analyzed the ash, or has obtained
different results;

c)Here it
is some big lie- the unique good variant is the results of the Test were
actually expected but Rossi still cannot or will not explain them.

I am totally confused
by this problem.

This is a crucial
problem; for the time given- as far as I know- the authors have not answered a
single question at a special forum organized for this.

Rossi declares very
clearly on his blog that he will NOT answer any question regarding the reactor
and the test- niente! So he does not confront more the questions of those curious
people discontented with some aspects or details of the test.

So many questions will remain unanswered. But
this still is not so troubling as Rossi’amazement with those isotopic
changes.

Rossi gives us (the
public) fragments of information, as pieces of a puzzle. Those who have other
pieces of the puzzle (supposedly Industrial Heat, Elforsk) can
reconstitute a bigger piece and
understand the situation we remain with half-truths or in the best case with
Pareto truths- and this is endemic for LENR, see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/11/80-of-all-truths-are-pareto-truths.html

The Report confronts: many angry attackers and the
assertion “it was a remarkable achievement”again is a Pareto Truth. One test, one reactor (as I
commented yesterday) calorimetry in rather unusual conditions, no more
alternative methods used for calorimetry, no verification, re-verification and
cross verification. I know two colleagues who are unable to swallow the 1400 C
temperature- plus red glowing plus nickel melted for sure in some places.
Reality is not homogeneous; there are hot spots in many places. It smells of
disaster.

We are a family of chemists- my
wife and my daughter are specialized in analytical chemistry, I am a chemical
engineer

We know from practice that sampling and sample preparation is the most difficult
part of the analysis and it is so easy to obtain non-relevant and
non-representative samples and results. And what has happened with the sampling
after the test? I may not use 4-letter words here. The problem is – and Rossi
will not let us know- was a correct sample taken too, analyzed and evaluated?
And are there insides who know the complete results?

Rossi and his new nuclear physicist
collaborator need his information for the TRUE THEORY promised by Rossi

And for a patent if he really wants
one…

People who invested hopes this new
source of energy are confronted with this situation:

No absolute certainty of getting
this energy, the test indicates with high probability (taking in account the
first test too) good excess heat- Rossi is right that only the commercial
generators will bring certainty;

Interesting: a reader called Amos-
I believe he is from South Africa commented on my blog (thanks!):

Either
way, the next few months in the LENR space will be quite interesting thanks to
this report. Remember I told you 2014 will not be the year of LENR as you had
postulated. I still maintain that 2015 / 2016 will be the year. Wonder what
Randall Mills thinks of the E-Cat now.

He can
be right, I have my reasons (77 of them) to be in hurry. As regarding Randy, I
can ask him but it is just a formality. Who believed in the functionality of
the E-cat continues to believe after this test and is happier but this 32 days
test not converted many -skeptics in E-cat lovers.

Do not ignore competition- it
comes! There are scientists able to understand even those mysterious isotopic
shifts and know the complete scenario and are adept in controlling the energy
release…

No more scientific experiments like
this one says Rossi but even in his camp surprises are possible. What will do
Elforsk?

I have full empathy for he testers who
have risked much, get tons of insults, I wait for an opportunity to express it
to them directly.